Re: [PATCH 3/5][9PFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks

["Eric Van Hensbergen" <ericvh@gmail.com>]

On 9/17/07, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org> wrote:
> The __mandatory_lock(inode) macro makes the same check, but
> makes the code more readable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
> Acked-by: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>
>
> ---
>
>  fs/9p/vfs_file.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/9p/vfs_file.c b/fs/9p/vfs_file.c
> index 2a40c29..7166916 100644
> --- a/fs/9p/vfs_file.c
> +++ b/fs/9p/vfs_file.c
> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static int v9fs_file_lock(struct file *f
>         P9_DPRINTK(P9_DEBUG_VFS, "filp: %p lock: %p\n", filp, fl);
>
>         /* No mandatory locks */
> -       if ((inode->i_mode & (S_ISGID | S_IXGRP)) == S_ISGID)
> +       if (__mandatory_lock(inode))
>                 return -ENOLCK;
>
>         if ((IS_SETLK(cmd) || IS_SETLKW(cmd)) && fl->fl_type != F_UNLCK) {
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/